Thesis: 358 Winchester is the single most ballistically efficient round in exist

[nomosendero]

I wonder how people chose a rifle before they knew about ballistic coefficient, sectional density, hydrostatic shock and so on?

Now let's not take the fun out of it! 

[BANG_OW]

My experience, albeit limited, for knockdown power,has been:
                                                      #1 - .35 Whelen, 225 gr Bearclaws
                                                      #2 - .45-70 .405gr hollowpoint
                                                      #3 - 20 gauge slug
Don

[coyotejoe]

Penetration is more reliant on bullet construction than sectional density. A soft bullet will penetrate less than a bullet of heavy construction regardless of sectional density. For example a Sierra Game King compared to a Barnes TSX.

Really.  I just didn't think anyone would think that I was comparing a copper solid slug with a relatively soft lead tipped thin jacketed bullet.  Well, I was using a Speer manual, so you think just maybe we're looking at two Speer spitzer style bullets.  In that case, sectional density would certainly make a difference.  A longer bullet (for caliber) of similar construction is just plain going to penetrate better than a shorter bullet of that same construction.  I believe I'll stand by what I wrote.

No, you really can't count on that. Just because two bullets are made by the same company does not mean they will expand and penetrate in a similar fashion. Think of it this way, if two different 200 grain bullets both expand to .75 caliber without loosing any weight, they how have the sectional density of  a 200 grain .75 caliber regardless of what their original diameter may have been. You also fail to consider impact velocity, a given bullet from a .300 Savage will not behave like the same bullet from a .300 mag and from either caliber it will not behave the same at 30 feet as at 500 yards. But fortunately penetration is seldom an issue on American game, if the bullet chosen is at all suitable it will have more than adequate penetration. Of course I don't consider the "Texas Heart Shot" or varmint bullets on moose.

[358Win]

Hi Friends: I sure don't mean to pick on any ones favorite round, or suggest that efficiency is the only or even one of the major reasons to pick a given cartridge or rifle for a particular purpose.  I would never suggest that the 30/30 won't kill deer, in fact I suspect that I'll find it to be one of the most efficient 30's out there..  My purpose is just to add to my knowledge and the knowledge of our group in one little area that doesn't seem much discussed.  Just because the 22 Hornet is more efficient than the 220 Swift doesn't mean that I would choose the Hornet over the Swift for 200 yard shots at Coyotes.  Just to clarify the 358 Winchester is not new or exotic and is definitely not a magnum in any sense of the term.  Just a nice small 308 case necked up to 35 caliber.  Any way I'm back to working on the spreadsheet, thank goodness this is a free country and I can use my spare time as I see fit.

[358Win]

Note: I had originally intended to do calculations at the muzzle, 100 yards and 200 yards.  After working on it for a while.  I've decided to eliminate the 100 yard data.

[358Win]

While I had originally intended to start with 6mm bullets, I decided to put in some 22 centerfires.  This is a little more time consuming than I had hoped.  Below is the first set of data:

Cartridge   "Bullet
Specs"   "Bullet
Weight"   Powder   "Powder
Weight"   "Muzzle
Velocity"   "Muzzle
Energy"   "Muzzle
Efficiency"   "200 Yard
Velocity"   "200 Yard
Energy"   "200 Yard
Efficiency"   Source
22 Hornet   "Hornady .224
SD=.128,BC=.191"   45   Win 296   12.4   2900   840   67.8   2140   458   36.9   Hornady 3rd Edition
22 Hornet   "Hornady .224
SD=.142,BC=.220"   50   Win 296   12.2   2800   870   71.3   2147   512   41.9   Hornady 3rd Edition
22 Hornet   "Hornady .224
SD=.157,BC=.211"   55   Win 296   10.4   2500   763   73.4   1833   410   39.4   Hornady 3rd Edition
22 Hornet   "Speer .224
SD=.114,BC=.143"   40   H4227   12.3   2980   789   64.1   1926   329   26.8   Speer Number 8
22 Hornet   "Speer .224
SD=.128,BC=.160"   45   H4227   12.0   2812   790   65.8   1892   358   29.8   Speer Number 8
22 Hornet   "Speer .224
SD=.142,BC=.167"   50   H4227   12.0   2738   832   69.3   1867   387   32.2   Speer Number 8
22 Hornet   "Speer .224
SD=.147,BC=.195"   52   H4227   11.7   2690   835   71.4   1941   435   37.2   Speer Number 8
22 Hornet   "Speer .224
SD=.157,BD=.209"   55   H4227   11.5   2572   808   70.2   1887   435   37.8   Speer Number 8
225 Winchester   "Hornady .224
SD=.128,BC=.191"   45   H 4895   33.4   3700   1368   40.9   2750   756   22.6   Hornady 3rd Edition
225 Winchester   "Hornady .224
SD=.142,BC=.220"   50   H 4895   34.8   3800   1603   46.1   2945   963   27.7   Hornady 3rd Edition
225 Winchester   "Hornady .224
SD=.157,BC=.235"   55   H 4895   34.2   3700   1672   48.9   2912   1035   30.3   Hornady 3rd Edition
225 Winchester   "Hornady .224
SD=.171,BC=.262"   60   H 4895   33.0   3500   1632   49.4   2818   1058   32.1   Hornady 3rd Edition
223 Remington   "Speer .224
SD=.128,BC=.160"   45   IMR 4198   22.5   3521   1239   55.0   2288   523   23.2   Speer Number 8
223 Remington   "Speer .224
SD=.142,BC=.167"   50   IMR 4198   22.5   3445   1317   58.6   2270   572   25.4   Speer Number 8
223 Remington   "Speer .224
SD=.157,BD=.209"   55   IMR 4198   22.0   3261   1298   59.0   2321   658   29.9   Speer Number 8


Wel pasting from Excel doesn't seem to line up very good.  But the 22 winner at 200 yards so far is the Hornady 50 in the 22 Hornet
with 41.9 Foot-Pounds per grain of powder burn with W296.  If any of you know a trick for pasting Excel into these reply windows
please let me know.

I'll try to get the 243/6mm data in later today.

[deltecs]

[/quote]
No, you really can't count on that. Just because two bullets are made by the same company does not mean they will expand and penetrate in a similar fashion. Think of it this way, if two different 200 grain bullets both expand to .75 caliber without loosing any weight, they how have the sectional density of  a 200 grain .75 caliber regardless of what their original diameter may have been. [/quote]

Actually sectional density does matter even on expanding bullets.  A 200 gr in a .358 has a sectional density of .223 while a 200 gr in a .308 has a sec density of .301.  Given that both bullets expand to .375, the longer of the bullets will have the greater sec density at the base after expansion for more straight line penetration of a .375 bore.  Momentum values play into this sectional density penetration issue.  A 200 gr .358 and a 200 gr .308 traveling at 2550 fps will have identical momentum values of 72.86.  The .308 expanding to .375 will be longer and thus have a longitudinal axis that resists changes in direction.  The .358 expanding to .375 will have a shorter axis permitting easier deflection according to the laws of physics.  An object in motion resists changes in velocity and direction.  Since momentum is a measure of inertia, and sectional density is measure of cross sectional area to bore diameter for the entire bullet and not just the frontal expansion, the 200 gr .308 should penetrate more than the .358 if both expanded to .375.  However, since there is no proof that the terminal ballistics of either bullet will perform exactly and precisely each time on game, it only makes sense to use sectional density as a tool to consider when selecting bullets for game and expected hunting conditions and scenarios.

[wncchester]

358, you have an interesting project and a good preliminary idea of what the end result might be.  I question the validity of obtaining the basic VELOCITY/ENERGY data beyond the muzzle tho.  The down range data will mostly reflect the value of the  BC of the bullets involved, not really reflecting the "efficiency" of the cartridge itself!

(And be careful that you only draw your final conclusions AFTER you gather the data.  Or you will be in the position of the "scientists" who "prove" man is responsible for Global Warming before they have a solid data base!)

[BigJakeJ1s]

Well, first of all the .30 cal 200 GS is not very close in BC to a .30 cal 200 grain spitzer (.448 compared to .556).  Secondly, if I was creating a heavy, distance load for the 30-06, I would be concentrating on the 200 grain spitzer.  By comparison, even a 250 grain spitzer .358 slug only has a BC of .446, far behind the .30 cal 200 grain spitzer with its .556 BC (unless you don't think 25% is significant, and that with a heavier bullet that the .358 can't push as fast).  For example, a 200 grain 30-06 spitzer at 2600 fps will hit with 2036 fpe at 300 yards, compared with a 250 grain .358 spitzer at 2350 fps which will hit at 300 yards with 1837 fpe, and with a 100 yard zero, the .358 will drop about a half foot more than the 30-06.  Accordingly, the 30-06 will have less recoil, shoot flatter and hit with about 10% more energy.  The 200 grain 30-06 load would also give greater penetration with its .301 sectional density, compared to the 250 grain .358 sectional density of .279

As to the 30-06 having no loads with the 250 grain bullet, I don't buy factory ammo anyway.  If I want a 250 grain bullet, I'll simply load some.  In fact, I have an old Shooting Times issue with a 250 grain 30-06 load producing about 2450 fps.

Finally, as to comparing loads with different powders, I merely took the top load for each and compared weight of powder.  If you are wanting to talk efficiency, it would seem that you want to know how much powder to achieve the desired results, regardless of which particular powder works best for either cartridge.

What I meant (instead of what I typed) was that the BC of 448 was closer to that of a spitzer than a flat nose, as you called the bullet originally.

Now tell me again how a 20% lighter bullet, with 26% less frontal area (before it expands), is going to hit a game animal "harder" because of less than 10% more energy?

I would certainly assume we are talking about hand loads, since there is only one "factory load" available in 358 anyway.

If you go back far enough in any shooting magazine you can find loads much hotter than in today's loading manuals (I assume from which you are pulling your 358 info). Comparisons between old magazine articles (or even new articles) and reloading manuals are pure folly. However, I will concede the existence of a 250 gr 30-06 load, so long as it fits the magazine.

To compare efficiency of loads, compare the relative potential energy required to achieve similar results. Note I did not say energy expended, since incomplete conversion should not count in favor of a specific load. Without knowing the energy density of two powders, comparisons of weight between them are meaningless with regards to efficiency.

But this whole argument is getting pretty silly. You like 30-06; I like 358 win. Fair enough.

Andy

[SHOOTALL]

in Reloader mag. or one of the others  took a spritzer and a round nose bullet loaded them the same and shot um thru. the same gun  if i remember , they were almost shooting the same on the target , the article was showing that the bullet shape dosen't handicap the lever gun as much as people think , in your project how will bullet type/shape figure in or will it since bc could be quite different yet preformance at certian ranges could be close !

[tanoose]

Well i am going on 51 years of age and have hunted with the 30/06 since i was 16, I will say it is one of the best and i have three rifles in 30/06 that i gave away to my three kids to do there deer and big game hunting with. This left me with having to buy a new rifle for myself and its funny because i have chosen the 358 Winchester. Not to say i will never buy another 30/06 down the line but i feel i missed out many years with out one. I guess i got on the 35 caliber craze last year. I also wanted a lightweight rifle to Carry all day long so i got the browning BLR  it weights in at 7 pounds topped with a Leupold 1.5x5. So Far so good its as accurate as any 30/06 I've owned and the rifle is much handier then all the 06's i had.In the future i'll post again to compare it  with the 30/06 in the field on deer black bear and moose.

[deltecs]

There is no doubt in my mind that for all practical hunting ranges the .358 Win is a fine and underestimated cartridge.  Using the 225 gr and 25 gr bullets it is an excellent round for larger NA game and does a really good job on deer size animals using the 200 gr.  I've used both and the .358 Win hits moose and bear much harder than the 06 at ranges to 150 yards.  The penetration is sufficient to reach the vitals from almost any shot angle using the appropriate bullets.  The 06 has the same similarity.  It too needs the right bullets for the game to be most effective.  Regardless of the books, I find the .358 Win to recoil less than the 06 with similar loadings.  The 06 is more versatile used as a one rifle shoots all, but the .358 Win will do a better job of anchoring bigger game.  It is a very efficient round.

[358Win]

Hi Friends: While I went out on a limb by trying different brands of bullets for the 22 center-fire data.  I am aware that BC is a huge factor in the 200 yard data.  That is one of the reasons that I've chosen to only use Barnes bullets for the rest of the study.  I'll be putting up the 243 data shortly.  In that I used 2 loads the one with max velocity and the one that hit peak pressure with the smallest charge weight.  As for the concern that I would try to force the data to fit my theory have no fears.  When I was getting my Engineering degree the way we were taught to use the scientific method was to propose a Hypothesis and then do everything in our power to prove the Hypothesis to be incorrect, and then modify the Hypothesis and repeat until no flaws could be found.

The fact that my own personal favorite rifle is a Browning BLR in 358 Winchester, just means that I have to be extra careful not to be biased.

[nomosendero]

Hi Friends: I sure don't mean to pick on any ones favorite round, or suggest that efficiency is the only or even one of the major reasons to pick a given cartridge or rifle for a particular purpose.  I would never suggest that the 30/30 won't kill deer, in fact I suspect that I'll find it to be one of the most efficient 30's out there..  My purpose is just to add to my knowledge and the knowledge of our group in one little area that doesn't seem much discussed.  Just because the 22 Hornet is more efficient than the 220 Swift doesn't mean that I would choose the Hornet over the Swift for 200 yard shots at Coyotes.  Just to clarify the 358 Winchester is not new or exotic and is definitely not a magnum in any sense of the term.  Just a nice small 308 case necked up to 35 caliber.  Any way I'm back to working on the spreadsheet, thank goodness this is a free country and I can use my spare time as I see fit.

It is a nice cartridge, especially for under 250 yards. And you are right, we should not likely pick this or any cartridge for efficiency alone, but if it is efficient & yet it fulfills the desired purpose, it is certainly not a bad thing. So, if you are hunting Deer, Black Bear, Elk & Moose type game, esp. at 200 yards & less, it is very efficient for that purpose with the right bullet.

By the same token, a 6mmbr has extreme efficiency for wind bucking, long range target efficiency. How many cartridges offer true 1,000 yd. target capability with a 105-115 gr. bullet & only 30 grains of powder? Again, to be efficient & still accomplish the desired goal is a good thing. It doesn't matter if the 358 shows to be a little more efficient than a 6mmbr in pure terms or not. The 358 cannot be by any stretch a 1,000 yd. target round
& the 6mmbr cannot be a logical 200 yd. Moose/Bear round. So again, efficiency for the intended purpose is cool.

I think it is good to have a few efficient rounds in your battery because they will be barrel life friendly. This is great for volume shooting. It is also fine to have some in the safe that don't qualify as efficient. I have a bunch of those, 25-06AI, 300WM, 270, 30-06 & others that have a certain niche
(other than the '06) & they will do things for me that the 358 or 6mmbr never could. So, like you said, efficient alone will not cut it for choosing rounds, especially if we have a need that overshadows efficiency. 

358, I agree your time should be spent the way you wish, but I am curious. Are you retired, as this study could be a long one.

[RaySendero]

Well the subject line is a bit short.  But the subject of my next investigation into modern ballistics is: Is the 358 Winchester the Single Most Efficient Centerfire Caliber in Existence or Not?
I absolutely don't know if this is a fact.  I strongly suspect that this is the case.  I'll be writing a series of articles to see if the Thesis is True or Not.

358Win,

Think your articles will be interesting - Looking forward to reading them.  As I understand, you will look to bullet energy per grain of powder burned or momentum per grain of powder burned.

But let me pose a question - How will you include the aspect of sectional density as it pertains to penetration? SD x velocity / grain???

[wncchester]

"When I was getting my Engineering degree the way we were taught to use the scientific method was to propose a Hypothesis and then do everything in our power to prove the Hypothesis to be incorrect, and then modify the Hypothesis and repeat until no flaws could be found."

GOOD thought, I wish A.Gore, et al, could find a few more "scientists" who think like engineers!

I don't have a .358.  Do have a .35 Rem (a VERY efficient game cartridge) and .30-06 so I can't justify more but I've always lusted for a .358 in a BLR or a .35 Whelen in a bolt gun.  Hope you have a grand time working this out and that you post the results here.

[358Win]

Here is the 0.243 bore diameter cartridge data:

243 Winchester   Barnes.243,SD=.181,BC=.307   75   H414   45.5   3495   2034   44.7   2907   1407   30.9
243 Winchester   Barnes .243,SD=.181,BC=.307   75 IMR 4831   48.5   3595   2152   44.4   2994   1493   30.8
243 Winchester   Barnes .243,SD=.218,BC=.382   90   RL 22   48.0   3341   2230   46.5   2879   1656   34.5
243 Winchester   Barnes.243,SD=.218,BC=.382   90   Win 760   43.0   3216   2067   48.1   2767   1530   35.6
243 Winchester   Barnes.243,SD=.242,BC=.406   100   RL 19   45.0   3192   2262   50.3   2770   1703   37.9
243 Winchester   Barnes.243,SD=.242,BC=.406   100   H4350   41.0   3106   2142   52.2   2693   1610   39.3
                              
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff   200 Vel   200 KE   200 Eff
6mm Remington   Barnes.243,SD=.181,BC=.307   75 IMR 4831   49.0   3639   2205   45.0   3031   1530   31.2
6mm Remington   Barnes.243,SD=.218,BC=.382   90   RL 22   48.5   3353   2246   46.3   2890   1669   34.4
6mm Remington   Barnes.243,SD=.242,BC=.406   100   RL 22   47.0   3225   2309   49.1   2800   1741   37.0
                              
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff   200 Vel   200 KE   200 Eff
240 Weatherby   Barnes.243,SD=.181,BC=.307   75   H 414   54.5   3879   2505   46.0   3237   1745   32.0
240 Weatherby   Barnes.243,SD=.218,BC=.382   90   RL 19   56.0   3619   2617   46.7   3126   1952   34.9
240 Weatherby   Barnes.243,SD=.242,BC=.406   100   RL 22   49.0   3361   2508   51.2   2923   1897   38.7

Well after putzing around with Excel trying to get something readable this is as good as it is going to get for now.  Note that for the 243 Win two loads with each bullet weight are shown.

Thanks to Casull for pointing out that I really only need to do these calculations for the highest velocity loading for each caliber and bullet weight.  Note that the 200 yard efficiency in Foot-Pounds
of energy per grain of powder burned is in the far right column.  The Muzzle Efficiency is the 4th column from the right.  Previous work done by myself and others on the Muzzle Efficiency shows
that the contenders all have Muzzle Efficiencies in the high 60's and low 70's.

While the 6mm bore has many useful functions and I would surely use them in preference to anything larger for varmints, coyotes, and bench rest shooting.  This bore is just too small to have
extreme efficiency in terms of Energy/Grain.  This is the first time I've seen numbers for the 200 yard Energy/Grain efficiency.  It was interesting to note that for this bore the heaviest bullets not
only win out at range (which I expected), but they win at the muzzle also (which I didn't expect).

One last point someone mentioned that the 200 grain '06 shot a half foot flatter at 300 yards than a 250 grain 358 Win does when zeroed at 100 yards.  That may very well be true, but out here in
the West I can't imagine anyone using a 100 yard zero.  Most of the people out here use a 200 yard zero or others like me just sight 2 inches high at a 100.  Some even suggest going 3 or 4 inches
high trying to get Maximum Point Blank range.  The other thing wrong with this comparison is the apples of a 200 grain versus the oranges of a 250 grain.  As Sam Clements (aka Mark Twain) once
said Lies, Worse Lies and then Statistics.  First do this comparison with a max of 2" above the line of sight  The 200 grain BC=.550 30-06 at 2600 fps zeroed at 195 yards (note shooting zero is 27 yards) gives a -9.0 inch drop at 300 yards.  Using the same method for the 250 grain BC=.458 358 Winchester at 2350 fps we get a 175 yard zero (with a shooting zero of 25 yards) and a drop of 13.7 inches at 300 yards for a difference of 4.7 inches difference or about the width of your hand.  I'll grant that this comes out worse than I thought.

I just ran the differences for both the 30-06 200grain BC=0.550 with a 200 yard zero and a 358 Winchester 250grain BC=0.458 with a 200 yard zero and the '06 is 8.6 inches down versus the 358 at 11.2 inches down for a difference of 2.6 inches.  Then if we decide to really run apples vs apples: Barnes #1 gives their 200 grain 30-06 at 2,715 fps with a BC of .550 with a 200 yard zero we get a drop of 7.8 inches; Barnes #1 gives their 200 grain 358 Winchester 2794 fps with a BC of .346 with a 200 yard zero we get a drop of 8.2 inches for a difference of 0.4 inches.  I don't know about anyone else but I can't shoot good enough to tell the difference of less than a 1/2 inch at 300 yards.

[358Win]

Hi wncchester:

   I think that Mr. Gore and more than one or two other politicians get most of their exercise jumping to conclusions.  Maybe if he took up a nice hobby and shot targets for a couple hours a day, he would recognize that the score is what you earn, and not just what you want it to be.

[358Win]

Hi nomosendero:

   I wish I was retired.  I just celebrated my 54th birthday on the 17th, so I've got at least 13 years left.  Fortunately, as a Software Engineer, my job isn't too physically stressful and is always exciting.  Like a lot of people in this age bracket I've had a couple of careers so far.  First I got an Associates Degree in Machining and Metal Work.  I then spent several years working as a Machinist in a Physical Test Lab for a Steel Mill.  Then I had a couple of half careers as a collections agent for a finance company, and in my youth I worked as a mold man in a Tire Retreading Plant.  After getting into the steel business I worked on a Brick Gang repairing Open Hearth furnaces while I went to school at nights to get my Machinist degree.  Then I got laid off in 1982 just before the birth of my son and second child.  After about 9 months of looking for something that would pay the bills.  I went back to College and got a Degree in Electrical Engineering.  With minors in Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science.  About 1/2 way through school the steel mill called me back to work and even paid for a goodly share of the rest of my Degree.  I only had to sign that I would stay for a year.  I ended up staying for 5 years.  Then I got a chance to do process control and computer based tracking for one of the largest fully automated DNA sequencing labs in the world.

   So I just try to squeeze this in without having my wife blow a gasket.  A tricky deal at best.  But the things we do for our hobbies.

[358Win]

Hi Ray:
   Currently I was only planning on doing Energy/Grain.  But I could surely add Momentum/Grain very, very easily.  If at least 2 or 3 people would like that data added in I'll be happy to do it.  I've got a great book that goes into great depth on Sectional Density, Deformation of Solids (Bullets & Bone) being related to Energy.  Penetration of elastic media (Skin) as a velocity decrement, and final penetration of the body cavity as a function of Momentum Density including an offset to the Diameter that accounts for turbulent fluid flow around the projectile which alters the Momentum Density by adding 0.033 to the Diameter of the expanding bullet.  Needless to say it get very complicated very fast.  But for the layman if you just take the results that the Army and Winchester have already worked out and don't have to go through the proofs yourself, it isn't too bad.

[RaySendero]

Hi Ray:
   Currently I was only planning on doing Energy/Grain.  But I could surely add Momentum/Grain very, very easily.  .....

Wonder if you'd get a different efficiency winner if all calibers were compared using bullets with the same sectional density???

[358Win]

Hi Friends:

   Well the web site I was using to compute the 200 yard data, is down tonight.  So this first run at the .257 bore diameter data just shows the Muzzle data.  I'll repost the .257 data again after the JBM Web Site comes back up.

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
250 Savage   Barnes .257,SD=.162,BC=.289   75   H 414   44.0   3477   2013   45.7
250 Savage   Barnes .257,SD=.184,BC=.309   85   H 414   42.5   3268   2015   47.4
250 Savage   Barnes .257,SD=.216,BC=.401   100   H 414   40.5   3072   2095   51.7
250 Savage   Barnes .257,SD=.249,BC=.429   115   H 414   38.0   2857   2084   54.8
                     
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
257 Roberts   Barnes .257,SD=.162,BC=.289   75   H 4895   45.0   3648   2216   49.2
257 Roberts   Barnes .257,SD=.184,BC=.309   85   H 414   50.0   3454   2251   45.0
257 Roberts   Barnes .257,SD=.216,BC=.401   100   RL 19   50.0   3183   2249   45.0
257 Roberts   Barnes .257,SD=.249,BC=.429   115   RL 22   49.0   2975   2260   46.1
                     
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
25-06 Remington   Barnes .257,SD=.162,BC=.289   75   RL 15   50.0   3674   2248   45.0
25-06 Remington   Barnes .257,SD=.184,BC=.309   85   RL 19   57.5   3511   2326   40.5
25-06 Remington   Barnes .257,SD=.216,BC=.401   100   RL 19   55.0   3354   2497   45.4
25-06 Remington   Barnes .257,SD=.249,BC=.429   115   RL 22   52.5   3086   2431   46.3
                     
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
257 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.162,BC=.289   75   RL 22   76.0   4012   2680   35.3
257 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.184,BC=.309   85   H 450   70.0   3779   2695   38.5
257 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.216,BC=.401   100   RL 22   72.0   3564   2820   39.2
257 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.249,BC=.429   115   RL 22   69.0   3371   2901   42.0


Looking at the Muzzle Efficiency for the 0.243 bore diameter. the first place winner in that bore is
1) The 100 grain bullet out of the 240 Weatherby Magnum with 51.2 Foot-Pounds of Muzzle Energy per Grain of RL 22 burned; followed by
2) The 100 grain bullet out of the 243 Winchester with 50.3 Foot-Pounds of Muzzle Energy per Grain of RL 19 burned.

Moving up to the 0.257 bore we get the 115 grain bullet out of the 250 Savage with 54.8 Foot-Pounds of Muzzle Energy per Grain of H 414 burned.

[358Win]

Already I've learned that the 240 Weatherby is much more efficient than I would have guessed.  As has been pointed out several times in this thread there is much more than efficiency involved in choosing a rifle for a given purpose.  But if and when I get in the market for a 0.243 bore rifle I'll surely give the 240 Weatherby much more consideration than I would have done previously.

The 0.257 bore is already showing the trend that has been found by others, which is heavy bullets of greater bore diameter in the smaller cases tend to be more efficient.  While I normally don't think in terms of military applications, I'd say that our servicemen deserve something on the order of the 250 Savage over the 223 pip-squeak they are currently saddled with.

One more comment: In a previous post someone mentioned something about the 30-06 having less recoil than the 358 Winchester.  This statement is in stark contrast with my own experience.  While a lot of factors contribute to perceived recoil including stock design, recoil pad, gun weight etc.  I have a personal case that might shed some light on this.  My 358 Winchester BLR is one of the lightest recoiling guns I have ever owned.  This rifle weighs 6 & 1/2 pounds out of the box and with the Nikon 1.5 to 6X scope, and mounts, loaded with the sling weighs just under 8 pounds.  In contrast I have a 270 Winchester Ruger #1-B that weighs 8 & 1/4 pounds and with the scope and sling weighs 9 & 1/2 pounds.  Even with the extra weight and down loading the 270 to throw a 130 grain Nosler Ballistic tip at 2,900 fps.  The 270 kicks quite a bit harder than the 358 Winchester loaded with Barnes Triple X 225 grain bullets loaded to 2,475.

The only 30-06 I've ever owned that kicked less than this 270 was the M1 Garand.  And the 358 Winchester BLR kicks even less than the M1 Garand.  What makes all of this even more interesting is that the 270 load sending a 130 at 2,900 fps generates 2,427 Foot-Pounds of energy, the 30-06 sending a 200 grain at 2,600 fps generates 3,002 Foot-Pounds of energy.  Finally the 358 Winchester throwing the 225 Barnes Triple X at 2,475 fps generates 3,060 Foot-Pounds of energy.  So even with 600 Foot-Pounds more energy the 358 still kicks less than the 270.  And my Ruger M77 30-06 kicks even harder than the 270 Winchester Ruger #1B.

Recoil forces come from two separate components: 1) recoil due to conservation of linear momentum, and 2) the jet effect of the powder gases when the pressure tube (barrel) is uncorked at bullet exit.  Since we know from simple algebra that the momentum effects are simillar.  That only leaves jet effect.  Since in both cases 30-06 and 270 we are pushing a larger volume of powder gas down a smaller diameter barrel we know that the greater recoil is due to the jet effect.

[Coyote Hunter]

358Win -

Let’s just do the math:

12.5 foot-pounds @ 9.2fps = .270 @ 9.5 pounds, 130g @ 2900fps, 50g powder

20.0 foot-pounds @ 11.6fps = .30-06 @ 9.5 pounds, 200g @ 2600fps, 54g powder
23.7 foot-pounds @ 13.8fps = .30-06 @ 8.0 pounds, 200g @ 2600fps, 54g powder

24.3 foot-pounds @ 14.0fps = .358 Win @ 8.0 pounds, 3225g @ 2475fps, 48g powder

I had to estimate the powder charges from Hodgdon’s web site, picking middle of the road charges for each cartridge based on desired velocity.  I purposely chose a lighter charge than I thought was justified for the .358 Win to help ensure any error on my part would bias the results in favor of the .358 Win.  Note that I also chose both an 8.0  (sporter weight) and 9.5 pound (standard M1 Garand weight) weight for the .30-06.

Using the program “Point Blank” (available free at www.huntingnut.com) to calculate recoil, the .270 is the easy winner in the low recoil race.  Not only is the recoil less in terms of foot-pounds, the recoil velocity is significantly less as well.

The M1 .30-06 comes in next, with significantly less recoil and velocity than the .358 Win load.  In platforms of equal weight the .30-06 still beats the .358 Win by a slight margin.

Like you said, there are factors which affect felt recoil, including stock design.  But in an apples-to-apples comparison, the .270 wins the race handily and the .358 Win loses in every comparison.

[RaySendero]

Let’s just do the math:

12.5 foot-pounds @ 9.2fps = .270 @ 9.5 pounds, 130g @ 2900fps, 50g powder

20.0 foot-pounds @ 11.6fps = .30-06 @ 9.5 pounds, 200g @ 2600fps, 54g powder
23.7 foot-pounds @ 13.8fps = .30-06 @ 8.0 pounds, 200g @ 2600fps, 54g powder

24.3 foot-pounds @ 14.0fps = .358 Win @ 8.0 pounds, 3225g @ 2475fps, 48g powder

CH,

Would you run numbers for my 9.3x62 rifle with my reload?
Rifle weight is 8 Lbs
Bullet weight is 286 grains.
Powder charge is 56 grains.
Muzzle velocity is 2,400 fps.

[358Win]

Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
6.5 x 55mm Swede   Barnes .264,SD=.246,BC=.441   120   H 4350   47.0   3111   2578   54.9
6.5 x 55mm Swede   Barnes .264,SD=.287,BC=.522   140   H 4350   45.0   2924   2657   59.1
                     
6.5 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .264,SD=.246,BC=.441   120   H 4831   59.0   3265   2840   48.1
6.5 Rem. Mag.   Barnes .264,SD=.287,BC=.522   140   RL 22   56.0   3041   2874   51.3
                     
264 Win. Mag.   Barnes .264,SD=.246,BC=.441   120   H 450   66.0   3423   3121   47.3
264 Win. Mag.   Barnes .264,SD=.287,BC=.522   140   H 450   62.0   3235   3253   52.5
                     
Cartridge   Bullet Maker/Specs   BW(gr)   Powder   PW(gr)   M Vel   M KE   M Eff
270 Winchester   Barnes .277,SD=.223,BC=.406   120   H 4350   58.0   3284   2873   49.5
270 Winchester   Barnes .277,SD=.242,BC=.428   130   RL 22   62.0   3254   3056   49.3
270 Winchester   Barnes .277,SD=.261,BC=.462   140   RL 22   61.0   3166   3115   51.1
270 Winchester   Barnes .277,SD=.279,BC=.491   150   RL 22   59.5   3090   3180   53.4
                     
270 Weatherby   Barnes .277,SD=.223,BC=.406   120   H 4350   68.0   3372   3029   44.5
270 Weatherby   Barnes .277,SD=.242,BC=.428   130   IMR 4831   68.0   3225   3002   44.1
270 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.261,BC=.462   140   IMR 7828   70.0   3161   3106   44.4
270 Weatherby   Barnes .257,SD=.279,BC=.491   150   IMR 7828   69.0   3092   3184   46.1


To no ones great surprise we have a new Efficiency winner at the muzzle, the 6.5 x55 Swede with 59.1 ft-lbs of energy per grain of H4350 burned.

So far the only real surprise has been the 240 Weatherby.

Hi Coyote Hunter:

   Your numbers look pretty good.  A real good guess on my charge weight 50 grains of H380.  Do these numbers just account for momentum or do they include the jet or rocket effect of the
powder gases hitting the atmosphere?  I'd still much rather shoot 50 of my 358's than 20 of the 270's.  Not sure quite why.

[358Win]

A really awesome site for all kinds of ballistic calculations is:

http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/

[nomosendero]

Did you look at a 6mmbr with 105-115 gr. bullets or just the more popular commercial rounds.

Yes, alot of bang for the buck with the 6.5X55.

[358Win]

Using the JBM Recoil calculator I get

JBM Recoil Output
Input Data
Charge Weight:    50 gr    Muzzle Velocity:    2900.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight:    9.5 lbs    Bullet Weight:    130 gr
Calculated Parameters
Recoil Velocity:   9.2 ft/s    Recoil Energy:   12.5 ft•lbs
Recoil Impulse:   2.7 lb•s    

for my Ruger #1 270 Winchester all the input parameters are shown in the above.


Now using the same program for the 358

JBM Recoil Output
Input Data
Charge Weight:    48 gr    Muzzle Velocity:    2475.0 ft/s
Firearm Weight:    8.0 lbs    Bullet Weight:    225 gr
Calculated Parameters
Recoil Velocity:   14.0 ft/s    Recoil Energy:   24.3 ft•lbs
Recoil Impulse:   3.5 lb•s    

Given those numbers and the perceived recoil I can only say that the Browning BLR must fit me better, have a better recoil pad, etc. than the Ruger #1.  Muzzle blast I'm sure is part of the perception.  The Ruger #1 in 270 Win has a 21" barrel and the Browning BLR 358 Win has a 20" barrel given the vast difference in expansion ratio probably factors into the perception.  I know that the muzzle blast of the 270 in that shortened barrel length is a fierce fire ball that can be clearly seen in daylight.  I'd like to photograph it at night as I'm sure that would be quite a picture.  On the other hand the 358 has almost no muzzle blast in daylight.

But even with that the Ruger #1 270 starts to get painful on the shoulder as an accumulated effect after about 20 rounds.  I've done numerous 50 round sessions with the 358 Browning BLR and never had a twinge of shoulder soreness?  So there is something going on that doesn't have a correlation to the Recoil Energy numbers.

I just did a quick check to see if JBM's program and the source you used since they yield the same numbers and both programs are doing something to account for the rocket or jet effect of the powder gases.  Just using momentum gives a very simple formula where the (mass of the gun) * (recoil velocity of the gun) = (mass of the bullet + half the mass of the powder) * (velocity of the bullet).  The assumption in this calculation is that the mass of the powder gas is evenly distributed along the barrel length thus placing the point mass of the powder gas at the midpoint of the barrel length which accounts for the factor of a half in the powder weight since even distribution would mean that the velocity of the powder gas a nano-second prior to bullet exit would be half the muzzle velocity of the bullet.  Moving that divisor from the velocity of the powder to the mass of the powder is mathematically equivalent by the distributive property of multiplication.  In formula form this proof can be written as:
(mass of the gun) * (recoil velocity of the gun) = (mass of the bullet * muzzle velocity) + (mass of the powder * velocity of the powder) where velocity of the powder = velocity of the bullet / 2 to account for the even distribution of the powder gas.

In this case for the 358 we have (56,000 grains for the mass of the gun where 1 pound = 7000 grains) * (recoil velocity of the gun which is the unknown variable we are trying to find) = (225 grains of bullet weight) * (2,475 fps muzzle velocity) + (48 grains of powder weight) * (1,237.5 fps velocity of powder gas assuming even distribution).  Note: that the gravitational constant to convert weight to mass at the earths surface is 32.174 feet per second squared.  When both side are divided by the weight of the gun this constant cancels out and can be eliminated to reduce the complexity of the equation.  So to make an already too long of a story shorter we have:

Recoil Velocity of the Gun = [(Weight of the bullet in grains + Weight of the powder charge in grains / 2) * (Muzzle Velocity in fps)] / (Weight of the gun in grains)
with the load under consideration the bullet weight is 225 grains, half of the powder charge is 24 grains, and the 8 pound rifle(including scope, sling and ammo) = 56,000 grains or

Recoil Velocity of the Gun = [(225 + 24) * 2,475 fps] / 56,000 = 11.0 feet per second.

As noted above the computer program used to calculate the recoil velocity of the gun gave a recoil velocity of 14.0 fps.  Which means that the jet or rocket effect of uncorking the pressure vessel (i.e. the barrel of the rifle) is being accounted for in some manner.

Just to make sure I don't lose all of this I'm going to post and finish in the next post.

[Coyote Hunter]

CH,

Would you run numbers for my 9.3x62 rifle with my reload?
Rifle weight is 8 Lbs
Bullet weight is 286 grains.
Powder charge is 56 grains.
Muzzle velocity is 2,400 fps.

Sure.

35.72 foot-pounds @ 16.96 fps recoil velocity